Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated: Radio | Main | Wisdom from H.L. Mencken only hours before the start of the Democratic National Convention... »

Monday, August 25, 2008

You know you’re an aging hippy when...

...teenagers on skateboards interrupt your pot rally to lecture you on the evils of marijuana.

According to a news report from Metro News in Calgary, marijuana activist Neil Magnuson argued with teenagers during the Calgary stop in his cross Canada Freedom Tour to raise awareness of the injustice of marijuana prohibition.

One the kids said, “I think I can have a better life without weed.”

That’s a smart kid. Life is better enjoyed with a clear head.

But the 50-year-old activist, Magnuson, makes the point that “adults deserve to make their own choices.”

Hmm...also a good point.

So why don’t we treat marijuana like alcohol and encourage parents to teach abstinence?

With 70% of teens admitting to trying marijuana after 80 years of prohibition, we could hardly do worse from a deterrence perspective – and this more liberal approach to marijuana would respect the right of adults to make their own peaceful lifestyle choices.

Posted by Matthew Johnston on August 25, 2008 in Current Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55472204c8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference You know you’re an aging hippy when...:

Comments

Well, JC, let's be frank. You're blaming a noun for the verbs of individuals, just as the gun-grabbers do. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. Prohibition doesn't cause violence; people willing to ignore it just to get their kicks do. What does it say about a person who's willing to feed organized crime, thus becoming an accessory to the attendant murders, rather than switch to Tequila?

Leave hard drugs aside for a moment. If marijuana were legalized:

1. Organized crime would still flourish, because the pot grown by the underworld is usually destined for export to countries where it would remain illegal. This includes the gang wars, the grow-rips, the ruined housing, and so on.

2. Electricity theft and fires would still happen, because power is expensive and it's much cheaper to steal someone else's. The type of person who grows marijuana is likely to be a shady character to start with, because that's the sort the lifestyle attracts. Ditto with ruined rental housing.

3. The government would earn next to nothing on taxing it, because unlike tobacco, marijuana is easily grown at home. Even if a product is legal, it's possible to sell or transport it in an illegal way, and this would likely continue. Over half of all pot grown in the Netherlands is for the black market, not the coffee shops where it can be smoked openly.

4. We would still have the problem of drugged drivers and machine operators. Alcohol is metabolized at a predictable rate and its effects are also fairly predictable. Marijuana is fat soluble and can be dumped unexpectedly into your bloodstream (and therefore your brain) for weeks after ingestion. Its effects are also less predictable, and its numbing effect is at least as profound as alcohol's.

And most of all, and I mean MOST OF ALL:

5. It would still STINK. And let's face it, anyone who thinks we could get away with imposing on dope smokers the same time/place restrictions we now impose on tobacco smokers, and have them remain within the law, is kidding himself.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-26 3:03:50 PM


Fact reamains that pot is against the law, world law, and will remain against world law for some decades still - and very likely remain against the law forever.

-The arguments the stoners present do not convince the rest of us, the majority, that we should accomodate free access to cannabis.

Prohibition is winning if the stoners are losing.

Posted by: 419 | 2008-08-26 8:32:14 PM


Marijuana also has dozens of medical applications, including but not limited to the treatment of epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, post traumatic stress disorder, arthritis, muscle spasms, morning sickness, anxiety, depression, asthma, nausea, irritable bowel, and crohn's.

Recent science shows how is slows the advancement of of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and recent science out of Germany shows how cannabinoids (found in marijuana) stimulate the body's production of TIMP-1, which helps healthy cells resist cancer invasion (www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20071226/pot-slows-cancer-in-test-tube)

That's right – pot actually fights cancer – something the media has been steadfast in failing to report.

Beyond that, if you accept that the government has any say at all as to what you can and cannot put into your own body, then you must accept their ownership. That means the government owns you like a slave, or pet, or cattle and that you have only the rights that they grant. If you are stupid or weak enough to accept that, then maybe you deserve to have no rights at all.

Russell Barth
Federally Licensed Medical Marijuana User
Patients Against Ignorance and Discrimination on Cannabis
(PAIDOC)www.paidoc.org

Posted by: Russell Barth | 2008-08-27 6:20:08 AM


Prohibition doesn't cause violence; people willing to ignore it just to get their kicks do.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 26-Aug-08 3:03:50 PM

Just to get their kicks? Nope...just to make an artificially high profit. Artificially high because it is contraban.
And it remains illegal in most countries for reasons already pointed out. The government can not regulate or tax it. And that, in a nutshell is why its illegal. If our benevolent and all knowing owners could make a profit from it...they would. They don't give a rat's *ss about us "individuals" on this or any other level.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-27 6:48:21 AM


Russell wrote: “Marijuana also has dozens of medical applications, including but not limited to the treatment of epilepsy, HIV/AIDS, glaucoma, post traumatic stress disorder, arthritis, muscle spasms, morning sickness, anxiety, depression, asthma, nausea, irritable bowel, and crohn's.”

Uh-huh. All conditions for which no conventional medicines exist. It sounds to me like these people are just getting stoned to the point where their illness no longer bothers them. The only demonstrable medical benefit I’ve heard reported about marijuana is that it restores appetite—while trashing your lungs and messing with your hormones.

Russell wrote: “Recent science shows how is slows the advancement of of Alzheimer's and Parkinson's, and recent science out of Germany shows how cannabinoids (found in marijuana) stimulate the body's production of TIMP-1, which helps healthy cells resist cancer invasion. That's right – pot actually fights cancer – something the media has been steadfast in failing to report.”

Sure, Russell. It’s a conspiracy. You and other stoners alone know better.

Russell wrote: “Beyond that, if you accept that the government has any say at all as to what you can and cannot put into your own body, then you must accept their ownership. That means the government owns you like a slave, or pet, or cattle and that you have only the rights that they grant. If you are stupid or weak enough to accept that, then maybe you deserve to have no rights at all.“

Fortunately, Russell, the question of whether I deserve any rights has not been left to you. And you’ve yet to prove the link between banning undesirable substances and human chattel. It’s a moronic appeal to emotion and that’s all it is. But then, the Left doesn’t often appeal to logic, does it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-27 7:18:53 AM


JC, when I say that people are ignoring prohibition just to get their kicks, I'm not talking about the dope growers and dope pushers. I'm talking about the dope smokers who provide the market. Stoners would rather support murdering criminals than make a minor change to their lifestyle. It's actually kind of despicable when you think about it, isn't it?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-27 7:22:48 AM


You know when you're an aging hippy when...

when you defend values formed when you were a teenager at a party because yoi feared your friends not thinking you were cool...decades pass, your friends moved on mentally, , socially and you didn't..

aging hippy stoners sound like Gramps, cranky and repeatative stuck in some other decade- still fighting a war in their minds that ended for everybody else long ago..maybe we should just send them cards on April 20.
Show them some Christian kindness..
" Here ya go old Rebel here's a loonie .Peace out..
you got enough matches for the day ? "

Maybe explain to the kids like those straight edge skateboarders in the origional posting how old stoners used to be productive and interesting, till they slowly went dope spooky. We would be better off cautioning kids not to tease old hippies - they are just sort of there, harmless but underfoot ... like pigeons at the bus station

Posted by: 419 | 2008-08-27 8:33:14 AM


There was a newsclip on the C.T.V. website yesterday about "The biggest pot bust in B.C. history". It just happened a few days ago , so everyone can relax, problem solved.

Posted by: glen | 2008-08-27 9:41:53 AM


The problem will be solved when stoners grow up and put down their joints, Glen. If there is one common undercurrent that runs through much of the dope-smoking community, it is emotional immaturity. I've said it before; regardless of its actual merits, marijuana would probably get a far easier ride towards legalization if most of its supporters weren't such scraggly, weedy characters.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-27 9:58:50 AM


Actually Shane, according to an article in todays Calgary Sun, [Albertas reefer madness hitting new highs], there seems to be quite a few adults with kids and responsibilities using this stuff "that are not criminals at all". And the majority are just occasional users "like beer and wine drinkers". I suppose it would make dinner parties more interesting. [Not that I would know anything about that].

Posted by: glen | 2008-08-27 10:25:31 AM


Shane you make some good points. But the cause and effects are so vast and complex we may never reach an accord on the subject. Marijuana does have some medicinal value and I don't believe we are getting all the pertinant facts on the subject from any source. Example, I have a lady friend who suffers migraines. She has tried too many pharmaceutically produced chemical cocktails and found that none provide relief. What works? Yup you guessed it, Pot. And she is straight as an arrow and seems ashamed to even admit that occasionally she will seek out a joint just to get some relief. She "feels" like a criminal, and that just isn't necessary.

Posted by: JC | 2008-08-27 10:38:35 AM


We don't have to reach an accord on this issue.
( Accord meaning " harmony or consistant mutual conformed agreement )
It was settled, long ago- it's called the law if the land. This law was written by our own people- it was not a code forced upon us by an invader

The drug laws are not a pee wee hockey game stoners can shout at the referee and expect a reversal on a play call...nor rewrite the rules of the game because somebody , maybe even yourself got called out & penalized ..

The Cannabis plant and its dericatives are prohibited- and where Cannabis is grown , prepared or used
by Canadians is by permission of the Health Minister
Medical/Industrial use is OK.- recreational use is not OK... None of this should be a surrise to stoner society

The Health Minister is obliged by International treaties to keep it that way--and most people seem to agree- thats called the will of the majority.

If anyone wants it different, they have to do a better selling job than the whiney social magic show we are hearing here.
Way better. way _way better.

Posted by: 419 | 2008-08-28 10:41:14 AM


419, I want to emphasize the fact that very few of "us" participate in the writing of the laws. I also don't recall a referendum on the topic, or the government asking us for our opinion on it.

Even if "we" somehow participated (in a deeply meaningless way), I still don't see why that should matter. There's 30 million of us Canadians, explain to me how we come to a "collective" decision that truly represents each Canadian? (This is a broader topic. I don't think the government or the laws of Canada "represent" me in any meaningful or significant way. My right to vote once every four years isn't exactly what I'd expect from a theory of representation that has anything going for it).

Finally, even if the prior conditions are met, let's not forget about how a majority can stifle a minority.

But you do make a good point, 419. We really should avoid "social magic" arguments, or mere ad hominems. I'll try to come up with a few arguments either later tonight or tomorrow. I'd be curious to hear your responses to them.

We don't have to agree, but we can at least see that one another's position on this topic is reasonable. And reasonable disagreement is better than misunderstanding. Agreed?

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-08-28 10:48:24 AM


Glen, it's not surprising that there are adults with kids using this stuff; this is, after all, the baby boom generation, which is famous for its self-indulgence and its quest for perpetual youth and the halcyon days of Camelot. The whole point of the original article is that kids today are using less than their parents did.

Also, I find this study highly suspect. It claims that at least a third of Albertans are REGULAR DOPE SMOKERS, whereas everywhere else the one-third figure more accurately describes those WHO HAVE TRIED MARIJUANA AT LEAST ONCE (a number that includes myself). Sorry, but without corroboration I can't believe such an incredible statistic, although it might help to know what they consider a "regular" consumer.

Baby boomers did manage to have kids (especially out of wedlock, in unprecedented numbers), and get good jobs, especially with the government (which were plentiful then), with laughable credentials (a liberal arts degree--please). That doesn't make them emotionally mature. They are in fact quite famous for the opposite attribute, which I believe was my original point.

And yes, it would indeed make dinner parties interesting--especially when it came to driving home. Do they use the designated driver system (with said drivers partying in a separate room to avoid second-hand smoke), or do they just drive home stoned?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 11:24:04 AM


JC, begging complexity is a tactic often used by those seeking a big, nebulous grey area. Sort of like women in child care who will torture themselves into pretzels trying to find new ways to cure cure bad behaviour when the obvious (but for them unacceptable) answer is a firm slap where their ego is the thinnest.

As to your lady friend--does the marijuana actually cure the pathology of the migraine, or does it just numb the symptoms? Because there are any number of mood alterers that will do the latter. Also, your example is anecdotal, and such accounts are unreliable. Lots of people swear by magnets in their shoes or copper bracelets; it doesn't mean they actually work, beyond placebo effect.

If true medical uses can be found for marijuana, well and good. We'll refine it, prescribe it as needed, and design appropriate delivery systems, such as inhalers or vaporizers, that allow the patient to ingest it without stinking up the whole block. But let's face it, the pot being grown by crime kingpins isn't being consumed by people with medical problems. It's being consumed by people with maturity and morality problems. And as long as the latter continue to provide the main impetus for legalization, not for medicine but for dissipation, pot is likely to remain marginalized.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 11:49:42 AM


P.M., you seem to favour "direct democracy," where every policy change of import is presented to the public for a vote. Given the fact that we're dealing with Canadians, many of whom resent being asked to vote MORE than once every four years, I think that's a little unrealistic. No system can, or pretends to, represent everyone to their satisfaction.

You might be happier in a commune--if there are any still left around.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-08-28 11:53:48 AM


Yo..
" We " are society,
the "We" who wrote the drug laws are " Us" not "Them"
the "You" part of "Us" wants a rederendum?

IS THIS THE PRIZE THE WIPEHEAD UNDERCLASS TRULY SEEKS ??


for real, right? we are talking the serious business of sociatol reform not a f*****g cartoon circus of angry intoxicated 420 clowns waving goodbye to Marc Emery as the paddy wagon takes him across the border for a spanking?
a real dope & society referendum _without a smokey parade, drum circle with people dressed up like pot plants or Uncle Sam sucking on bongs ??


Referendum,
aka: recount. remount, revision,. rewrite whatever of the standing cannabis and/or all controlled substances laws?

well maybe- if your team can seriously edit out the stoner retards amongst you maybe everybody else will listen..

Democracy allows for this recut if enough people want it
However, not enough people want this

Government does not have to ask "Your" opinion or any other liberty shunning sissy- "We" instruct government what
" We" want our sociatol bus drivers to do- and that process is democracy- one person one vote-

If the present government of Canada does nor represent your dreams, values and aspirations , my guess is you probably voted for one of the parties that lost. First prize forms a government-with all the legal power to call the shots. Second prize.?. well let's just say there is no meaningful second prize.. But, try try again

Democracy is a numbers game..and so far. after almost 80 years of controlled substances laws, the nimbers are in support of prohibition..

Majority stiffles a minority? snap out of it ..go home stoners and do your homework -_all of it and make sure its up to date and presentable to your many adversaries

If you really want the bus of society to stop, shift into reverse ,back up , turn around and then proceede on an entirely different route to an entirely different destination regarding dope --then it better be good..really good..not the usual wimpy skimpy wipehead crap thats wheeld out here and in the popular press.

PS- don't quote dead people. old science or sketchy activist felons if you want to make any meaningful or enduring gains in public support..none of that will wash for the present world much less the future world.

Posted by: 419 | 2008-08-28 1:33:30 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.